Dale
Mohawk Games Developer
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,829
So I've been called a 'fanboi' on numerous occasions to my posts here at CFC. Yes, I was a part of the Franky group who helped test Civ 5. Yes, I've been enjoying the game (to a point). Yes, I disagree with some of the rants against Civ 5.
But I am most definitely NOT a 'fanboi'. Let me outline my position:
I could go on about the bad combat AI, or the diplomacy, or the GUI, or lack of end game graphs and videos, or any number of other hashed out surface issues that afflict Civ 5. Instead, my problems with Civ 5 come down to only two game core points: immersion and maths.
Immersion:
Civ 5 lacks immersion. Consider that immersion roughly translates into "fun". When people say "oh the game is boring because I just click turn, turn, turn" and "the TV show in the background was more interesting", what people are trying to say is that Civ 5 lacks immersion. Immersion is simply keeping the player involved and interested in fun things within the game they are playing. Let me give you an example:
In Civ 4 it was an immersing and fun thing to build a huge army, but a tedious nightmare to micro-manage that army (movement of 50 units especially). This is where SoD's came into play. Civ 5 attempts to retain the immersion level of building an army, whilst trying to eliminate the unfun component (army management). Unfortunately what we've received is an unfun army building process, and a partly fun/unfun army management process.
Another example I could take is from an old game called Imperialism II. Resources were meaningful, in that you had to process resources into goods, such as furs into hats and iron ore into steel. These resources and goods would stockpile each turn, and almost everything you produced used these resources and goods. Luxuries would also go towards enabling more advanced citizens which would in turn provide more for your Empire. In Civ 5 though, resources are for the most part meaningless. Take iron, which after you get a few iron resources any additional ones are not needed. And for some games you can even go a majority of the game without iron at all. Similar for luxuries, the first of any type gives a happiness boost, but after that they are meaningless. If you have 1 or 10 of a luxury it still gives the same bonus.
I think ultimately what made Civ 4 BtS so successful, and so loved, is the immersion factor. Regardless of what was happening on the big screen, there were always some little sub-systems of the game to delve into to fill the quiet moments, such as religion, corporations or espionage. For Civ 5 however, we find that whilst the actual core gameplay hasn't changed 'that' much there is a lack of sub-systems to immerse oneself in during the quiet moments of the game. And I think this is critical, because it is this immersion level that Civ has been famous for, and the cause of the phrase One More Turn.....
Maths:
When I joined the Franky team, Civ 5 was about halfway through its development timeframe. Most (if not all) of the core foundations were already set in stone. The game as delivered failed in any number of core simple maths issues. Take the tech tree as one example.
When talking purely on beakers required, if you beelined for Biology at the start of the game, you would spend only 51% of the beakers required for Steam, even though they are at the same level and same power. Both techs open the exact same things in the policy tree, era level and other things, yet you could reach Biology in around half the time it would take to hit Steam. To me, this is a fundamental failure in simple core maths, and the tech tree was rife with these problems. Thankfully, the December patch fixed this particular one, but there are many examples of core simple maths destroying gameplay.
Another good example is the exponential food requirements as cities get bigger. Not only does it make bigger cities much slower to grow, since the science base rate is literally "number of population" it is literally better to grow a city from pop 1 to 2, than it is to grow a city from pop 10 to 11. The exponential science base rate growth from ICS is the core reason why ICS feels so natural in Civ 5. Regardless of whatever limitations are imposed on the game, whilst science base rate is linked to population count, with exponential food requirements for growth, ICS will ALWAYS be the more efficient option.
Conclusion:
So where does this put me on the "fanboi - hater" scale? Well..... in the middle. I love the ideas that Civ 5 is trying to deploy to the series, and essentially at its core the game functions the same as every other Civ. But the lack of immersion and the horrendous core mathematics are an abomination! IMO, the design is sound, and a very fun design. BUT, the implementation of that design leaves a lot to be desired.
So call me a 'fanboi' if you wish, but do so on the proviso that I'm a 'fanboi' of the ideas, not the implementation.
* To the Mods: please don't infract people for calling me a fanboi in this thread. Feel free in other threads though.
But I am most definitely NOT a 'fanboi'. Let me outline my position:
I could go on about the bad combat AI, or the diplomacy, or the GUI, or lack of end game graphs and videos, or any number of other hashed out surface issues that afflict Civ 5. Instead, my problems with Civ 5 come down to only two game core points: immersion and maths.
Immersion:
Civ 5 lacks immersion. Consider that immersion roughly translates into "fun". When people say "oh the game is boring because I just click turn, turn, turn" and "the TV show in the background was more interesting", what people are trying to say is that Civ 5 lacks immersion. Immersion is simply keeping the player involved and interested in fun things within the game they are playing. Let me give you an example:
In Civ 4 it was an immersing and fun thing to build a huge army, but a tedious nightmare to micro-manage that army (movement of 50 units especially). This is where SoD's came into play. Civ 5 attempts to retain the immersion level of building an army, whilst trying to eliminate the unfun component (army management). Unfortunately what we've received is an unfun army building process, and a partly fun/unfun army management process.
Another example I could take is from an old game called Imperialism II. Resources were meaningful, in that you had to process resources into goods, such as furs into hats and iron ore into steel. These resources and goods would stockpile each turn, and almost everything you produced used these resources and goods. Luxuries would also go towards enabling more advanced citizens which would in turn provide more for your Empire. In Civ 5 though, resources are for the most part meaningless. Take iron, which after you get a few iron resources any additional ones are not needed. And for some games you can even go a majority of the game without iron at all. Similar for luxuries, the first of any type gives a happiness boost, but after that they are meaningless. If you have 1 or 10 of a luxury it still gives the same bonus.
I think ultimately what made Civ 4 BtS so successful, and so loved, is the immersion factor. Regardless of what was happening on the big screen, there were always some little sub-systems of the game to delve into to fill the quiet moments, such as religion, corporations or espionage. For Civ 5 however, we find that whilst the actual core gameplay hasn't changed 'that' much there is a lack of sub-systems to immerse oneself in during the quiet moments of the game. And I think this is critical, because it is this immersion level that Civ has been famous for, and the cause of the phrase One More Turn.....
Maths:
When I joined the Franky team, Civ 5 was about halfway through its development timeframe. Most (if not all) of the core foundations were already set in stone. The game as delivered failed in any number of core simple maths issues. Take the tech tree as one example.
When talking purely on beakers required, if you beelined for Biology at the start of the game, you would spend only 51% of the beakers required for Steam, even though they are at the same level and same power. Both techs open the exact same things in the policy tree, era level and other things, yet you could reach Biology in around half the time it would take to hit Steam. To me, this is a fundamental failure in simple core maths, and the tech tree was rife with these problems. Thankfully, the December patch fixed this particular one, but there are many examples of core simple maths destroying gameplay.
Another good example is the exponential food requirements as cities get bigger. Not only does it make bigger cities much slower to grow, since the science base rate is literally "number of population" it is literally better to grow a city from pop 1 to 2, than it is to grow a city from pop 10 to 11. The exponential science base rate growth from ICS is the core reason why ICS feels so natural in Civ 5. Regardless of whatever limitations are imposed on the game, whilst science base rate is linked to population count, with exponential food requirements for growth, ICS will ALWAYS be the more efficient option.
Conclusion:
So where does this put me on the "fanboi - hater" scale? Well..... in the middle. I love the ideas that Civ 5 is trying to deploy to the series, and essentially at its core the game functions the same as every other Civ. But the lack of immersion and the horrendous core mathematics are an abomination! IMO, the design is sound, and a very fun design. BUT, the implementation of that design leaves a lot to be desired.
So call me a 'fanboi' if you wish, but do so on the proviso that I'm a 'fanboi' of the ideas, not the implementation.
* To the Mods: please don't infract people for calling me a fanboi in this thread. Feel free in other threads though.
in every fashion imaginable - so to speak.
